The Sun. — London, England, 1810-03-13 00:00:00

another from the Catholics of the County and - City of Cork. In alluding to the. former; the. Noble Lord- enumerated the.grievances of which the peti tiOners complained, and gave notice thatim a futpre da. he'shouid submit a petition to their Lordsb4ps, grount!eFl on the prayer of that petition. The petitions were then ordered 'to lie. on the table. The Marquis of• T.,,ANsuciarrtz moved that there -. be laid before. then /lOuse copies of the lekters.,Writ ten by S►r 'R 'hard Strachatt W. Croker, Esq. on the Eiilbjea.Ot Lori Ch itham's narrative, and also a copy, of the narrative itseif.—OrdereC - The Marquis:of NYEt.i..LsLix and Lord Liven row- aid _before OIL- • House several 'papers "which had been ,tnoyed fur reipc(;;ing Spain, whiCh atter shine complajncs log . the length of pine fliey had been .prep' wing, were (.;rd,red to be printed.. Lord HOLLAND' gave notice o , 114 intention to bring forward a motion resp.:cting the - Ne'gociaticiii which was said to have taken place with the' French Government for the exchange of prisoner. EAS F. INDIA CW.IPAi•J'i Lord.LAUDERPA LE brought.forward his promised motion tor a SeleCt Committee to inquire into. the state of the affairs of the East-India CoMpany.—As the House were not yet in possession of the doCti ‘nients necessary.to afford the desired information-On this subjea, he Should forbear. at „present entering into many of the 1416 on which he should find it necessary to dwell on a future occasion. He must now, however, remind their Lordships of the sums of money which llad already been advanced to that Company, and warn them tharit might be the in tention of. Goyei - nment that frirther advances of money should be .made . to the Company. It was also rumoured, that at no distant periOd - the Charter of the COmpatiy was to be renewed. These 'he thought grounds fully sufficient to -induce their Lordships to. take a viet,v of the :present state of the Company's affairs before they assented - ha any new grants. With that view he should now move for the appointment of a Seleet Committee to inquire into the Affairs of the East India Con'apapy, and to report to ,the House thereon. —The ;notion being agreed to; the Noble Lord 'named the committee. Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMOAS, MONDAY, MARCH 12. A Messagefroul the Lords announced their Lord ship's assent' to the Corn. Distillery - Prohibition Bill. The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod summoned the House to the, House ofPeeri. On the Speaker's return he informed the 'House of his Majesty's as-- sent having been given by commission to several' Public and Private Bills.—(For winch see our report of the Lords.) Sir W.•CURTIS moved the second reading of the New Stock Market Bill. He underst oc d it was t o be opposed ; why he (lid not, know, and was at a loss to conjectur,- what' could call forth opposition. Mr. H.:THORNTON thought the kill one Which the House could not entertain. If there already existed a body of men capable of carrying on such a busi ness, without an Ad of Parliament, he thought a fair competition existed, and that possessing an .Aa, would give the new competitors an unfair advan. tage. A. Stock Exchange tortnerly existed, to which persons could not be admitted, without be, coming annual subscribers. The question appeared , to be whether or not persons should be admitted who were not strangers, •as it was contended the existing Stock Exchange was not sufficiently open. Strangers were only excluded as far as was necessary to guard againt confusiOn, and those inconveniences which would result from admitting persons indis criminately, Mr. VAN SWIETON said, no fewer than 15 shares in the proposed Company were sold at Garfaway's, bearing inconsiderable premiums. He thought it high* time to discountenance such speculations, and • would therefore move that it should be read on that day six months. 1 Mr. DENT explained, and vindicated die principle of the Bill. Sir THom AS GRAHAM thought a new Stock Ex change absolutely necessary, and that even three or four would_ be desirable. He supposed thcise who opposed it must have interested motives. lir. S.. TawtriTopi made a few remarks ; after whteli. Sir W. CVRTI3, in reply, 'stated the present pro position had arisen from the business not being at present transaLled in a satisfaßory manner. The House would decide whether or not it became them as Representatives of the People, to vote in favour of. a private or a public market. On pubic grounds he wished for a public marker. Mr. BARHAM thought nothing conid be leSs'ob jeftionable than the proposition .before the House. If the Public were satisfied with the present mode of transacting business, the n.. 4 Cocnpany must of it self fall to the ground. He wished it to go into a Ctmrnittiee. Ali. MARTIN was of opinion nothing could be more unnecessary than a new Stock Exchange. The Public could derive no advantage from it, but, on the contrary would be 'considerably injured by its eti,Ets. Mr. BARING opposed the Bill. . . Sir C. Pal cs had made the fulleii inquiries - into the nature of the proposed establishment, and thought the most - serious consequences might be apprehend ed from the measure. The Gallery were then cleared fdr a division,when the numbers were— For the second reading - - 74 Against it - ---- 7 - - 6z Majority in favour c\t the Bill -12 Mr. WHAnroN brought up a return o f th e G o ld and Silver exported in the last year.—Ordered to be printed. On the motion of Mr. WIIITI3READ, accounts of all the monies received b r way of interest oh the Portuguese Loan, .wfi ot4ered to be laicl before the House. Mr. MARTIN postponed his Motion till Monday skelt t. Mr: SliFitiDAN had been induced to postpone his MOtion'resPeeting Bencheraf - some days, in con seqUence of its having been ntimated to him that it would be unnecessary. He would postpone it yet a few days longer—till Thursday ; [nit UnlOss it should appear to be wholly unnecessary, he cer tainly would bripg . the subject forward Sir J. ANSTRUTHER thought the Benchers would not meet by that time. The second reading of the Embezilement,' BM WLIS postponed till Thursday. Mr. PA RI•ELL gave notice of a motion, respeaing the public.,expenditure,.fol Tuesday. PAR.LUOVIENTAR.Y PRIVILEGES. Sir F. BURDETT said, he had been for some days prevented brirting forward his present motion by .Ir. He was aware of the awkardne” of the situation in which he stood, but he felt that he should rmt . do his duty if be 'did not endeavour to spew to the , House that their proceedings respeding- Mr. Gale Jones were unauthorised, and try to per suade theM to relax somewhat of their severity. If any of the privileges of that:House were repugnant to the Law of the Land, he would not .uphold them. For his 'own' part,- ' being .a man of a plain and ordi nary.p.nderstauding, he was accustomed to look to the Laws the Land, where only he was able to see,that . liberty he claimed for the country. It might be necessary . for him.tu state the origin and extent Of . their .privileges, and while he did so, he hoped it would he refoembercd that that House was not the Parliament, hut, only, onebranch of it. He consider ed it as being an inferior .branch of the Legisla ture. The SPEJ\RER observed such expresions were not 'allowable in that House. SioF. B'URDETT proceeded. He thought the cettn initial of Mr: J: Gale Jones was a violet ion of the known laws of the land, contrary to every principle of justice, and subversive of the liberty of the sub ject. He hoped they would banish all prejudices, and decide on the case before theM With that impar tial mildness which became men when judging a case in'which they were parti es concerne d. H e trusted they would make the law of the land the guide of :their conduct, and he hoped they would retradahe sentence they had pronounced, and that . he should be able to convince them they could in no way so well consult their dignity, because truth and common sense pointed out that es the line of con du& they ought to pursue. The , individual (Mr. G. Jones) was in no way the subje& of- his motion. He wished tt. call the attention of the House to .the question as to their right of imprisoning - the subjed, he had no intention of questioning any other right. The privileges of the House gave them no such power. He would have them consider the difference between - privilege and power. Privilege was that which - they possessed for their own, protedion ; power was an exercise of authority over others. The one was a shield for- their own defence, the other was a sword that might be used against others. Privilege, he saw from an old law in-Spel man, first provided for the security of persons going ta andirons Parliament. That he considered to be the ground of all their privileges. The extent of them ought to be defined, as a law of undefined pri vilege was - no law at all. He thought he could shew, that they were not above law, and that they were not undefined. It did not appear that they were above law, because in the reign of Edward IL it was enaded, that Members should not be . pro ceeded against In other Courts, as it was not just that suits should be carried on against them where they could not by passibility be present. The -ex tent of that privilege was, that that House should be able to de ,its duty without being interrupted, Their privileges could st be better defined than they were by Lord Coke in 1021, when he was a 1 Member of that 'House, in a resoluti o n, w hi c h h e proposed, and which set forth that th e y were free ' hoot arrest ; that their lands could not be taken from them, &c. ; thnse, together with freedom of speech, were all the privileges they could claim, and those gave - them no right above the law to deprive . . the subject of liberty. This. position he supported by citing the cases of Lark and Walsh, and more particularly by bringing forward that of. an indivi dual who • was Speaker of that .House (Thorpe.) He had been arrested for debt, and it was debated in Parliament whether or not the privilege ,would . apply to his case. The opinion of th e ' Judges was asked on the subject. Tory replied, that they were not to be called upon to decide on such a question. Subsequently, however, they gave it as their opi nion that no general writ could lie against a Mem ber, and that the privilege of the House should be extended to him. The subject was then debated in full Parliament, when their decision was contrary. to' That of the Judges. • Placing .a Member above the law, they say that the party to whom he was in. debied had no remedy, and that, consequently, there must he a failure of justiCe which was net to be borne. An6iher case that might throW some light on the .subjeet was that of Mr. Chidhurst, who was assaulted, tnaimed,•and - beaten on his way. to -the House, yet who (such at that time was the modesty of Meinbers of that House) was content to seek re paration at common law, and then a new jdw, ,not an ex post faah ad, was made imposing a heavier penalty on persons so offending. ' In ,case of the arrest of a Member, he was to be restored by legal means, after which they might proceed by a bill. Up to the Long Parliament no such autho rity was known as that recently experienced.-- Till the civil wars Parliament never thought of avenging its- own wrongs. At that time the ex isting circumstances were such as led the Sovereign to the block, overthrew the Government, and finally caused all the power of the Legislature to be as- surned by that House. That power, however, could not be regarded as legitimate under an established Government. Those usurpations (mischievous as' were their effe6ts), were approved of by the people as the only means 'of counteracting that power which went to destroy all the laws of the The ability and consequence of that House; at the period to which he alluded, was such, that from that time they had - claimed powers which consti tutionally they could sever exercise nor possess. This had been fully - demonstrated in, the eases of Sir J. Fagg,' Sir Samuel Bard latein, Dr. Carey, and four or five others. In the case of Sir H. Crispe versus Lady Bower Dalinailoy, and. others, the House of Lords had declared it impossible for the . House of Commons to commit a subject to prison, it being contrary to MagnaCharta. Thel-louse of Lords and thellouse of COMMqtlS,bad quit ably acted against each other in favour of the Public, and inequitably' acted against the Public in favour of themselves. But' whatever doubts might have existed anterior to the Revolution, 'he should have thought the question .. would have been put at jest for ever, by-the slogr;l ar i case which occurred in what he might call that good. Constitutional time, J 697.. He meat that of BriclAs man u. Holt, on the subject of a patent granted by Charles IL The decision. was against the patent. A complaint was subsequently made • against the judges to the House of Lords, The: 'Judges denied the legality of any proceedings against them in that House, •contended . for the right of trial by jury, and sheltered themselves under the broad shield of Magna Charta. The 'arguments they made use of applied - more to the Commons than to the Lords, as they never claimciiny juris diction as a Court of Law. The Lords did. Theirs was the highest Court of Justice in the country, ...as to them was made the Bernier appeal. The Judges claimed the right of-being tried by their Peers, and stated what would be the consequence of surren dering their rights. They stated that wyelier - They were convicted or acquitted, .the decision of that tribunal would not - prate& them froth being again called upon ; - and it was against eery principle of justice that a man should be called upon twice to answer for the same offence. .The an swer had, been " that the others, from fear or from policy, were unwilling to question the conduel of their superiors. They knew of no ,privileges that could ,justify them in submitting to give up their right to a trial by Jury; they knew not of such pri vileges in, law, and •it Would ill become them, as Judges, to betray the best interests of their country men, and assent to a viola ion of the Jaw of the land, as they would .do if they were to consent to establish such a precedent, and make that a law which was • unknewn to the Constitution and un heard of in thisland." Th ese wor d s app li ed to the case of Mr. Jones in a tenfold degree. Might not .he be tried hereafter for the same offence ? Nay, he understood that e Noble Lord, not then. in his place, had actually proceeded against him by corn . mon law for. a similar offence. Why did not the new Teller of the Exchequer (who was not in place, and who, he Understood was not likely to be soon restored), proceed against him by common law 'too? or why did not the Noble Lord proCeed as the Teller of the Exchequer had done ? For the same offence he was li a bl e to similar punishment. The Teller of the Exchequer might, hereafter takeehe ordinary course of law; and the Noble Lord might call him again to the Bar of that House. • The ille gality of the punishment prevented-his having it in his power to plead that as a prote&ion ageinstnew proceedings. Lord Holt, in Sir C. Banbury's case, had spoken of such a line of condo& as inconsistent 'with common sense. A great variety of cases could be adduced where the House had interposed, but not in which it had gone to the extent it went in the present instance. Many pamphlets had been published since the Revolution refleatirg on that House; the authors of which had only been repri manded or proceeded against by the Attorney Gene ral. The Hon. Baronet then adverted to the case of Mr.-Wilkes,- who having .written what was consi dered a libel, the Serjeant at Arms was sent into the city to take the Printer into custody, who, instead of suffering himself to be taken, took the Serjeant into custody, and carried him before t he - Lord Mayor, who committed him to the Poultry Compter. This was voted to be a violent breach of their privileges, and the Lord Meyier,• who was a 'Member of that • House, was in consequence committed . -to the Tower, but neither Mr. Wilkes nor the Printer who ,Were not Members of that House were p-oceetled against. If such were their conduct so lately, be wished to kn ow w h at h a d s i nce occurred, to cause a change, and to refute the sentiments of the Judg es. How was it then that they who could not fine a man, should have - it in their power to in flitl the severest punishment next to death, the law knew of ? Every part Of the warrant for the cord mittel of Mr. G. Jones was illegal. It ought to have a legal authority, a lawful cause, but above all, a lawful conclusion. A man legally could only .be committed to prison till he was liberated by the due course of law; but here a committal was made con fining the individual during their.pleastere. It was the duty of every Englishman to exert himself against a principal so unjust. Thecommittal of Mr. Jones of fended against every 'principle of British Jurispru dence, against all the fundamental laws of the land, against the "" Habeas Corpus Aa - 1, - and against the u n ali ena bl e and imprescriptible rights. of Englishmen. "J. hey had passed sentence on him for what they had,' previously - voted to .be an offence, and for an offence against what ? Why, for an offence against privileges which were said to he undefined, If they were un defined how did they know that' he had infringed them.? and how did they know but they had passed over their boundaries in their eagerness to punishhire . ? How could they be assured that they had not passed over those boundaries; which they would not define nor mark, that its future men might know . when they approach their borders. Such proceed ings were contrary to all AEls of Parliament, and snbversive of the prerogative of the 'Crown. The resolutions of that House were like bye laws of a corporation, an arbitrary usage of their own, and only extending to the Members: A Member of that House (Sir Fletcher Norton) on hearing their reso lutions on one occasion said, "he would pay no more attention to their resolutions than he would to a set of drunken porters in an ale-house.". This, however indecorous, was in one sense stritilly right ; they could effect nothing against - the Law of the Land, or against Magna Charta. If th e y s h ou ld b e w i th him of opinion, that they had taken a step which went to rob Englishmen of their best inheritance, and taking into - their consideration all the circumstances, they should be "of opinion they had aided with too great severity towards Mr. G. Jones, he trusted, see in they bad been wrong, they would Make no dif ficulty in complying with the I - notion which. lie would conclude by making, viz.—" That Mr. Gale Jones be discharged." Mr. C. WYNNE was sorry the Right Hon. Ba ronet attacked the privileges of the House ; he first conceived it to be his meaning, that "the House should not condemn an individual to - imprisonment for a libel, but when he called the privileges of that House in question, he could not supp ress hi s asto nishment. The Hon. Baronet bad alleged, that prior to the . Long Parliament, there appears no in stance • of commitment for libel ; but this was not the fad,, for There was the case of Thurst, in .the reign of Henry; VIII. who was inapt isoaed for such an offence. Privilege is not the work of any pArti e miler at-t, but has existed from the beginning of Par liaments. It is true teat many of the feivil ! ges al luded to by the Hon-Baronet we:e done away in consequence of their intruding too much on the lights of the . peeple ; .yet the principle on which they were grounded still exists. The ofTenee e cif Mr. Gale Jones was not against an individual, which that individual might redress by indictment; bot it was an offence against the whole body of Parliament. He concluded by saying, that however be might vote were the question in another way, in its present form he must vote against it. Lord A. HAAI/LT ON remarked, that from the general line - or politics of his Hon. Friend, he was sure he was not infiueneed by personal motives. He was confident a Court of Law would not be timid, in giving any redress, in consequence 'of any sentence of this Houie, but would decide according to law. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL understood from what has fallen from the Hon. Baronet, that he maintains that the individual alluded to shoul•Lbe liberated, on. the green& of this House having tro right to com mit him. He could not conceive how the cases cited, previous to the Revolution, could apply to the pre sent; alter that period, .the Hee. B ironet had mentioned two, wherein the Courts of Law had de termined contrary to the sentence of this House. Even these lawyers, he should shew, did not apply to the case in soles , ion. The first -W JS that of the Patent ; but he 'did not conceive that the refusal of the Judges to sign a Billoi•Exceptiona would be called a breach of privilege ; for what was soee iu the exercise of judicial duty could not be construed into a contempt of this House. He was still more surprised at the ref:rence to the Banbury cas, for here-the application was not even stated. In as appeal to the. House of Lords, tf e Judges were called on by them to explain the reasons of their decision ; they refused to do sso.unn ss upon at Writ..of Error. Still this was not contempt, a 1 2 ,1 indeed it was impoOble to draw any argurneut from either case. If this individual e ere brought by Habeas Corpus beferethe Kin g 's Bench, he was sure that Court weuld not interfere any more than if he had been committed by Common Law.— With respect to the case of Wilkes, where Lord Mayor CI osby, who was a Member of this House, was committed, it ought to be recollected that - it was not for any thing connected with his situa tion here. The Honourable. Barttner had alluded to the simile. which compered this assembly to a set of drtinken porters, and its resolutions to the bye-laws of a corpbranon. He would ask the Hon. Baronet what•goveins the validity of the oye laws of - a - Corpoftiribia against any thing done out of that corporation. In this rnatter he-would cite the opinion of Lord ChiefJuoice Deg Grey,wriu refers to Lord Coke's Institutes on the susjeet, and which ex_. pressiy declares that this House has full potters to commit for contempt and breach of ptivileges . and it was agreed that its adjudication was convi,7- lion, and its commitment execution. As ip the cbjeclion against the torm of the last clause of the warrant for commitment, " During 'the pleasure .of the House," and that it should be considered void, there was a precedent .for this too, in the case of CrOsby,whohe.commiital, it would a;pear, was like the present, and to which every cbjecuun was made in vain. Another more recent. case appeared in we House of Lords, that of the King v. B. Ig-ewer, :in which it Was determined that the House.of Cum mons had full power to commit to prison for e on s - tempt, and breach of its privileges. after many other able arguments, the Learned Gentleman con eluded by voting against the motion. Mr. CREEVEY, in support of tie motion, quoted several libels on the Hous,e, and for welch there was, no committal; he - likewise mentioned a petition from Kent, :which was likewise considered a libel, • but with a similar consequence. .He .not deny the power and auth o rity of:the House, but supported the motion for the liberation of Mr. Gale Jones: Lord.FoutsToNE was of opinion that the cases cited by the Attorney-General were not analogous to the present. He deemed it very unfair of the Learned Gentleman to rouse the feelings of the HouSe against. the thin. Baronet,-by alluding to w mat' was meetioned of "drunken potter," and !‘hees lawisa;" observing that the comparison was not =Cie, but merely adduced to illustrate his argument. His Lordship conceived this to be - a very serio u s case, and one that retiuired the totehtive eonsi‘!era tion of the House. On searching into the JournalS, he did not find it to be the exercised right of this House. The usual custom was to give the person. to the care of the Serjeant at Arms, and, then lona I a Committee to decide. The -Noble. Lord [ilea ? defined what lie conceived to toe contempt, name ly, such ,condua as would tend to interrupt the proceedings of the House, He should be happy if ,his. Hon. Friend would fiame his motion in such a way as that it might moreeasily be determined On. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the only quesiion to be, whether Mr. Gale Jones was guilty of e•on . tempt or not. When called to the Bar, he, con fessed himself guilty, and, on this confession, 'the House adjudged his punishment. it was open to evcryindividual to apply here by petition, and why was not this method pursued in the present instance Even after negativing this motion, I would not: re fusethe petition. Mr. SHERIDAN remarked that there had been many cases quoted, from ,Canute down to the pre sent time; but he wished' to call the 'attention of the House to one—that of Sir. Gale Jones. The Right Ron. Gentlemen said, that it would not be come the House to discharge him on the ground al. leged by the Hon.. Bart: but that he would vote for his liberation. He was at a loss to conceive why this person should be a martyr to the arguments brought . forWard ; these will not be inserted in the journals, they will not stand on record, but that an . unhappy, individual, after expressing unfeigned re gret and contrition, should still ;anguish in confine ment, truly astonished him—a victim to arguments:, every part of which went tacaa in question the rights, and authoritiesof this House. The privileges of the House of Commons must be defended by its-Mem bers, and surely it was a slip from the .Hon. Baro net, when he said this AsSembly was fie inferior of the three branches of the Legislature. He then filen tioned the case of Mr. Beeves. He was himself Chairman of the Cominittee, to Whose ~ dec i s i on was referred a most scand;ilous libel on Parliament;, it was then moved and agreed, th t th e p e r so b s h ou ld be prosecutes by the Ati - orney-General in the King . 3 where,. however, he was aequitted by a Judge and July. What was Mr Jones's offence ? The taking into consideration, in. a debating society, the conduct of their representatives. He had a strong objection to extremes, and therefore he should not follow the 'commitment. He then read that ta i bt, Ea 4vir. , tile ti ‘`"\-\